master plan 2009 – 2014 - ode.state.or.us · to serve as a statewide resource in the field of...

Oregon School for the Deaf Board of Directors

MASTER PLAN 2009 – 2014

Master Plan 2009 – 2014


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY…………………………………………………. p. 3

BRIEF HISTORY……………….………………………….. p. 6

MASTER PLAN FLOWCHART……………………………p. 8 MASTER PLAN NARRATIVE & STRATEGIES…………p. 9

CHALLENGES……………………………………………… p. 16

RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………… ..p. 18

TASK PLANNING PROCESS………………….………….. p. 19

EXHIBITS………………………………………………………p. 20

ACRONYMS…..……………………………………………….p. 21

2



SUMMARY

Introduction When the Oregon Legislature created the Oregon School for the Deaf Board of Directors (OSD Board) with the passage of HB 2263 in July 2007, the charge to the OSD Board was to design a five-year master plan outlining the mission and objectives of the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD). This charge is significant and requires the collaboration of OSD’s many partners and stakeholders.1 The document presented here is simply the framework for the next five years, 2009 – 2014. It is a fluid planning document, designed to adjust to the receipt and analysis of information gathered as the OSD partners and stakeholders convene and address critical questions in regard to the delivery of educational services to Oregon’s students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This plan is the result of the work by the OSD Board thus far and represents the board’s projection of the steps necessary to achieve the vision of a long-term educational program sustainable well into the 21st century. It is particularly important in this era of rapid change in technology, neuroscience and educational philosophy that the OSD Board and those the board is charged to advise, take a comprehensive and future oriented view, to assure the ability to meet the current and future needs of our students. Vision – OSD as the statewide resource for Deaf or Hard of Hearing Education The vision for OSD put forth in this plan arises from the review to date by the OSD Board of current policies and procedures, and from surveys and planning documents provided by the OSD staff.2 It is the consensus of the board that OSD continue to serve as a statewide resource in the field of deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) education. This will be achieved through the development of a collaborative learning center that includes a model K-12 educational program, a model program for transition students, ongoing professional development programs (including teacher training and continuing education), collaborative community partnerships, and educational research. The long-range goal is that

1 The legislative charge requires the board to conduct a comprehensive review, in conjunction with the ODE, of the policies and procedures of the school and of the state that relate to programs, services, and employment of staff for the school; and then, to design a five year master plan inclusive of procedures for measuring the OSD’s progress toward meeting its objectives as well as procedures for analyzing changes in student population and for modifying the school’s programs to respond to these changes. See Exhibit A (HB 2263 codified at ORS 346.010 et seq) 2 see Exhibit H (includes OSD vision, vision 2014, Site Council goals, CEASD survey, NAAS accreditation)

3



this center be the statewide resource for the dissemination of best practices in the field of deaf or hard of hearing education.3 Flowchart: The flowchart on page 8 provides a visual depiction of the legislative charge to the OSD Board leading to the vision, mission and objectives the program will pursue as it progresses to the year 2014 and beyond. A list of the strategies necessary to achieve the objectives follows the flow chart narrative. The Work Plan and the detailed Action Plan for the implementation of the strategies are found in Exhibit B. A narrative description of the flowchart and the components of the plan [Master Plan Narrative] follow the flow chart and strategies. A series of exhibits with bibliographic citations provide additional reference materials in support of the master plan in its current state. Comprehensive review and planning is critical to the success of the master plan: This plan demonstrates the need for a comprehensive statewide conversation with key OSD stakeholders. This conversation is not envisioned as a singular event. What is proposed is a series of dialogues with the stakeholders affecting or that are impacted by this student population at which the critical questions facing the OSD are addressed. The OSD Board cannot do this alone. Because OSD is but one component of the continuum of educational services4 for low incidence disabilities in Oregon, it is essential that the conversation include stakeholders from across the continuum. This begins with local school districts, Regional programs5, parents, teachers, staff and students, as well as the medical and social service professional that provide services to these students and their families. There is a need to define the role and responsibility of each component in the continuum which in turn will assure the 3 Summary Report Oregon Department of Education In Regard to Oregon School for the Deaf and Oregon School for the Blind, October, 1, 2008, p. 35-36, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. see Exhibit C 4 Federal law requires each state to provide a continuum of services to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities. These services can be delivered in a range of placement options including the regular age appropriate classroom, resource rooms, Regional programs and Special Schools, such as the OSB and the OSD. 34 CFR 300.115, OAR 581-15-2245. 5 There are eight Regional programs serving the educational needs of students who are blind/visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing, deaf/blind, orthopedically impaired, those impacted by traumatic brain injury and those diagnosed with autism. When originally designed in the 1980’s, the disabilities served by the Regional programs were considered low incidence, occurring in less than 1% of the population. In the intervening years, autism, particularly ASD (autism spectrum disorder) has increased well beyond the definition of low incidence. This is but one change and challenge facing the Regional system of program delivery that complicates the planning process for the OSD Board.

4



integrity and continuity of services provided across the state to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The OSD Board recognizes that there is currently an ongoing review and analysis of the Regional programs designed in the early 1980’s to serve students with low incidence disabilities.6 And further, recognizes that the restructuring and redefining of the core services for the provision of services for students with low incidence disabilities will impact the ultimate master plan of the OSD.7 This opportunity to design the OSD master plan necessitates the collaboration of many partners, and an in depth review of the funding, facilities and service delivery options. It is in the spirit of collaboration and a commitment to excellence that the OSD Board offers this initial five-year plan for review and adoption by the Oregon Legislature and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

6 Parrish, Thomas D., Ed.D. Study of the Fiscal and Operational Efficiency of Oregon’s Regional and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs, Final Report, August 17, 2007, p. 44. “Recommendation: Reconceptualize the state’s regional system of program provision.” See Exhibit D http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/schoolanddistrict/funding/sped/oregonefficiencyreport.pdf 7 Parrish, Thomas D., Ed.D. Study of the Fiscal and Operational Efficiency of Oregon’s Regional and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs, Final Report, August 17, 2007, p.46 ”From the onset of this study, we gained an image of a system that had evolved on a regional basis that is now transitioning. The current emphasis seems be on developing a single state vision and greater cohesion and service comparability across the state.” See Exhibit D http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/schoolanddistrict/funding/sped/oregonefficiencyreport.pdf

5

http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/schoolanddistrict/funding/sped/oregonefficiencyreport.pdf

http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/schoolanddistrict/funding/sped/oregonefficiencyreport.pdf



BRIEF HISTORY

The Oregon School for the Deaf was established in 1870. The school was located in Salem and moved to its present location at 999 Locust Street NE, Salem, in 1910. The school has been administered by the Department of Education under the direction of the Superintendent of Public Instruction since 1971. An outline of the history of the school, its administration, and the changes in student population and of the educational offerings of the school is detailed in Exhibit C. Exhibit C is intended to supplement the brief history provided here.8 Before the enactment of federal legislation mandating that all children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, the School for the Deaf provided one of few educational resources for Oregon students who were deaf or hard of hearing. With the passage of federal law PL94-142 in 1975, (also known as IDEA, most recently amended and reauthorized in 2004), local school districts became responsible for the provision of FAPE (free and appropriate public education) for each child residing within their district.

To assist local school districts in providing appropriate services to students with disabilities, the state department of education designed a regional delivery system of educational services for students. This regional system currently serves students with low incidence disabilities. Low incidence disabilities are those touching less than 1% of the population. These disabilities include deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, orthopedically impaired, autism and most recently, traumatic brain injury. With the regionalization of services more students began to attend local and regional programs for deaf or hard of hearing and the population at the OSD began to decline. This decline began to level off in the mid 1990’s with the student population ranging from a low of 118 in 2007 and 2008 to a high of 137 in 1998. (note, the population in 1997 was 119 students). The student population at OSD is approximately 10% of the identified deaf or hard of hearing student population in Oregon, which is currently approximately 1100 students 0-21 years of age. The educational philosophy of the school has shifted over the years as educators have debated the best instructional model for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Since the 1990’s, the school has provided instruction in ASL, American Sign Language, and in English in recognition of the value of 8 Summary Report Oregon Department of Education In Regard to Oregon School for the Deaf and Oregon School for the Blind, October 1, 2008, p. 35-36, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, see Exhibit C.

6



communication rich environment in fostering the literacy necessary for post secondary success.

In reviewing this proposed five-year plan, it is significant to note that there have been challenges to the continuation of the OSD program in its current design and function over the past fifteen years. These challenges have arisen in a climate of decreased education funding, changes in the student population, and changes in the service delivery model for students with low incidence disabilities. In 2005 and in 2007 the Oregon Legislature requested analysis be completed by the Oregon Department of Education on the cost effectiveness of retaining both the Oregon School for the Deaf and the Oregon School for the Blind in their present locations and with their present charge. The resulting reports led to the recommendation of the Superintendent to co-locate the two programs in an effort to address deferred maintenance and to reduce operational costs.

The Oregon Legislature enacted HB 2263 in July 2007, creating, for the

first time, a nonpartisan board of directors for each of the schools. The charge to each board, is, as mentioned in the summary, significant. The role of the boards is ultimately to advise both the legislature and the department of education on the future role and function of the two programs. The boards are charged with conducting a comprehensive review of the schools’ policies and procedures and more importantly, with designing a plan for the future. As advisors, these boards have the unique opportunity to step back and assess the factors that impact these programs in a way administrators, parents, teachers and students cannot. It is the unequivocal opinion of the OSD Board that OSD must continue to be an educational option for students who are deaf or hard of hearing and that OSD become the statewide resource in the field of deaf or hard of hearing education.

7



Page intentionally left blank….for flow chart diagram

8



MASTER PLAN NARRATIVE & STRATEGIES

The flowchart runs with numbered boxes flowing vertically from top to bottom. Where boxes sit horizontally, the boxes are numbered as subsets of the vertical number, for example: box #2 and to its right, is box #2a. Box #1 Title: The flowchart references the brief history section of the document where the reader will find the prequel to the development of the plan. Box #2 Comprehensive Review: HB 2263, the enacting legislation, requires the board of directors to conduct a periodic comprehensive review, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), of the policies and procedures of the school and of the state that relate to programs, services and employment of staff of the school. This comprehensive review is an ongoing process. As laid out in Objective number II.1, the board intends to design a planning process inclusive of key stakeholders to better understand the current service delivery continuum and to provide input toward realigning and defining core services, which in turn will clarify the role and function of the OSD. Box #2a Stakeholders: The legislation requires the input of stakeholders. The OSD Board seeks the authentic participation of these stakeholders in the review of current programs and in future planning. These stakeholders include, but are not limited to staff, students, parents, alumni, the ODE, local education agencies, regional programs and other relevant community partners, such as those in the medical and social service fields.9 Box #3 Master Plan February 2009: The master plan begins with a comprehensive review of the policies and procedures of the OSD by the OSD Board in conjunction with the ODE. Because the OSD Board is relatively young, created by legislation in July 2007, and holding its first organizational meeting in November of 2007, the comprehensive review is only partially complete at this time. In addition, the legislation requires the board to report to the legislature at the beginning of each biennium with a five-year plan. Multi-directional arrows pointing to the review and to the master plan and vision boxes within indicate the continuous cycle of review on the flowchart. Box #4 Vision: The vision for the future is the premise for the master plan. This vision is a fluid process, and begins here based on current information and the deliberations of the board to date. The vision for OSD at this time is that OSD be 9 The OSD Board has not had the opportunity to engage stakeholders as required. The board believes stakeholder input from all stakeholders is critical to the development of a viable 5-year master plan, hence the recommendation and call for the statewide conversation/planning process as outlined above.

9



a statewide resource providing an umbrella of services and the continuity and oversight to assure the implementation of best practices in the field of deaf or hard of hearing education across the state. To this end, the board envisions the OSD as a collaborative learning center. The traditional K-12 program will develop into a model academic program designed to meet the unique needs of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. In addition, the OSD will provide a model transition program for students transitioning into their post secondary endeavors. These model programs will provide professional development opportunities, and may include teacher training and interpreter internship opportunities. The learning center will also offer short-term enrichment programs for students of the school and for students attending regional and local programs. These enrichment programs will be offered throughout the year as well as during traditional vacation periods. Short-term assessment options will be offered to local districts and regional programs. In addition, finally, the board envisions the opportunity to use the collaborative learning center for research and the dissemination of information on best practices. As technology and research provide additional tools to increase access to student achievement, this final role will provide a critical link to a statewide system of excellence in deaf or hard of hearing education. Box #5 Mission: The Oregon School for the Deaf provides a comprehensive K-12 education program to meet the unique needs of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This is achieved through a dual ASL/English model of instruction assuring academic achievement leading to a full range of post-secondary opportunities. Box #6a, #6b and #6c Standards: These are the program standards necessary to carry out the OSD mission. The three standards are Continuous Improvement Box #6a; Integrated Systems and Structures, Box #6b; and Family and Community Engagement, Box #6c. Under each standard, there is an accompanying box, numbered 7a, 7b, and 7c, which details the program objectives. Box #7a: For the Standard: Continuous Improvement three objectives are listed that OSD will be working on over the course of the next five years. 10

Objectives I.1 – 1.3: The first objective, Curriculum and Instruction, directs the development of a model program using research based programs, which are measurable and adaptable to the changing student

10 For each objective, there are a series of strategies to be implemented over the course of the next five years. These strategies will drive the performance of the objectives and provide methods for measuring the successful achievement of the objectives. The strategies are listed following this narrative and are delineated in Exhibit B, where specific implementation dates, responsible parties and parameters are listed.

10



population of the OSD. The second objective is Student Achievement and focuses on increasing student literacy through a dual ASL/English model of instruction. The third objective, Student Safety recognizes a safe and nurturing environment is paramount to student success.

Box #7b: For the Standard: Integrated Systems & Structures a single objective is listed and underscores the necessity to understand the service delivery system and the factors which impact this system, particularly the funding mechanisms and the availability of adequate and appropriate facilities across the continuum.

Objective II.1 Identify Planning Process with ODE: Federal and state law require that a continuum of services be available to provide every student with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. OSD is but one program in that continuum of services. Understanding and clarifying the role and function of the services within this continuum requires a clear definition of the core services offered. As evidenced in the Parrish report and in the work done by the State Schools Study Committee report (SSSC) and the State Schools Study Report (SSSR), a statewide conversation among service providers and stakeholders is necessary to reassert or redefine core services.11 Identifying adequate and sustainable funding is critical.12 Objective II.1 calls for the identification of a planning process. A projected format for this process is offered on page 19 of this master plan and is entitled: Revisiting the Continuum: services for students with low incidence disabilities.

Box #7c: For the Standard: Family & Community Engagement contains 3 objectives, each designed to develop increased collaboration between the OSD program and the wide range of community partners and stakeholders who contribute to the success of the OSD program.

Objective III.1 Outreach: This objective focuses

on OSD becoming a statewide resource for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, for their families and for the professionals who serve them. The strategies that

11 See Exhibits D,E, & F 12 See Exhibits D,E, & F.

11



follow, if implemented, will increase partnerships and most importantly collaborative solutions to providing increased opportunities for students.

Objective III.2 Leadership & Self Development: The strategies leading to meeting this objective offer avenues toward success in students’ post secondary lives. Implementing strategies to build leadership skills in and out of the classroom is at the foundation of this objective.

Objective III.3 Transition: Although transition programs are a component of the educational program and dealt with in depth in the areas of curriculum and instruction, successful transitions for all students are predicated on the development of strategies that develop authentic relationships and coordination of services with local communities, Regional programs, higher education and organizations that promote positive post secondary outcomes.

12



STRATEGIES

* Exhibit B includes the Action Plan that contains each strategy and the accompanying implementation details: who, what, when and how. What follows here is a simple list of each objective and the strategies to achieve the objectives.

OSD Continuous Improvement Box # 7a

Objectives I.1 Curriculum and Instruction strategies: o Complete an analysis of current materials and curriculum in use at

OSD. o Compile current research on most effective strategies and

curriculum which best fits individual student needs in language arts, math, science, social studies, deaf studies, and health.

o Implement a curriculum and materials replacement schedule to update OSD curriculum.

o Provide adequate resources for curriculum replacement and for sustained professional development.

Objectives I.2 Student Achievement strategies:

o Compile current research on most effective strategies and curriculum for students who are deaf or hard of hearing in writing, reading comprehension, communication fluency, and technological fluency.

o Implement a system to track and report individual student growth in key achievement areas.

Objective I.3 Student Safety & Well Being strategies: o Ensure that all school facilities currently in use meet seismic and

safety standards. o Ensure accessibility and full ADA compliance. o Recognizing OSD is a residential and day school:

Complete an annual review of all OSD policies, procedures and relevant data related to student health, safety and well being (on campus, off campus and during transport).

• Include ADA accessibility and compliance. • Include review of facilities/maintenance.

13



Integrated Systems and Structures Box # 7b

Objectives II.1 Identify Planning Process strategies: o Identify and complete a collaborative process involving ODE, OSD,

Regional programs and LEAs to address areas of mutual concern. Identify and address services to deaf and hard of hearing students: *see attached Task Planning Sheet ,”Revisiting the Continuum” p. 19 of this master plan.

Planning topics: • Unmet educational needs in the state • Streamlining and coordinating referral processes • Coordinating and prioritizing OSD and Regional core

services • Clearly articulate OSD and Regional core services

and roles in the IEP process o Revisit and revise appropriate Oregon

Administrative rules • Stabilizing funding for both OSD and Regional

programs • Equalization of services to rural communities • Location of school and facilities needed to provide

core services • Long-term facility planning

o Investigate ability for OSD to access funds available to other Oregon schools either directly or in coordination with local school districts (Title IIa professional development activities, SIF {School Improvement Fund}, seismic upgrade grant, charter school grant, etc).

Family and Community Engagement Box #7c Objectives III.1 Outreach strategies

o Research outreach and training models from other states and review current and potential use of OSD Outreach Specialist position.

o Develop a summer training/evaluation session for students and parents currently not attending OSD that will not interfere with their school-year education program but will enhance parent-student sign communication, allow interaction with other deaf and hard of hearing peers, and offer leadership and social activities.

14



o Collaborate with ODE and Regional programs to develop a

placement guidance document which includes placement consideration topics for IEP teams, lists all core services available to parents and their child both Regionally and at OSD.

o Develop partnership and ongoing communication with EDHI, public health and the EI/ECSE programs to design methodology for understanding, tracking and planning for the impact of changing technology on students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Objective III.2 Leadership & Self Development strategies: o Develop additional leadership opportunities in academic, vocational

and extra-curricular areas for students who are deaf or hard of hearing by establishing and expanding partnerships with local high schools, other state schools, the community college, businesses and other agencies.

Objective III.3 Transition strategies: o Implement a comprehensive student guidance procedure that

articulates a coordinated set of evaluations, activities, goals, and transition services that will promote student’s post-secondary goals.

o Establish a 5-year plan for the Extended Studies Program (ESP), OSD’s transition / independent living program for deaf students who are 18-21 years old, developed in collaboration with stakeholders, based on research of other effective transition program models, and inclusive of recent program demographics and outcome data.

15



CHALLENGES

With the submission of this plan, the OSD Board acknowledges the difficult road ahead. We list here many of the challenges we have identified to date. On the following page, we list a series of recommendations for consideration of the Superintendent and of the Legislature. It is the goal of the OSD Board that students who are deaf or hard of hearing have access to the education and tools necessary for success in the 21st century.

Define the role of the OSD in the federally mandated continuum of services

o Requires the ODE to review, prioritize, and coordinate which core services for youth with hearing impairments will be available to IEP teams at the state schools and which services will be made available at the Regional level.

o Identify statewide planning process and pressing questions fully engage stakeholders; identify true interests and shared goals

• Pressing Questions Continuity of services statewide:

Address the need for continuity of services and a system to communicate and implement best practices statewide.

Best practices: What are the research and evidenced based best practices for deaf or hard of hearing education? How to insure decisions regarding service delivery are based on the best interests of the students who are deaf or hard of hearing?

Demographics: impact of changes Early identification and early intervention How will services need to be redesigned to meet the needs of students with cochlear implants?

Communication: Recognize the unique communication needs of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Acknowledge a communication rich environment is the least restrictive environment for students who are deaf or hard of hearing as required under federal law. A full continuum of appropriate options must be available, understood and offered to students and their parents/guardians. 13

o Continuity of communication mode inside and out of school.

13 See Exhibit I re: proposed changes to parental notice for IEP

16



Funding & Facilities:

o How to assure consistent and adequate funding for the continuation of services through the OSD?

• Technology upgrades: 21st century curriculum, teaching strategies, professional development all require appropriate technology be in place and be upgraded as necessary. Technology is essential to deaf or hard of hearing education; it is the cornerstone of education, providing access to communication and information. Appropriate technology provides critical tools to closing the achievement gap for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

• What facilities are necessary to maximize educational opportunity for students? How to fund and redesign facilities for 21st century students? Reports commissioned in fall 2008 confirm facilities require substantial seismic, ADA upgrades or replacement.14 The challenge is to proactively plan for future recognizing changes in educational philosophy, neuroscience and technology. OSD educational facilities require a deaf-friendly environment ~ one with open visual fields.

14 Condition Assessment for the Oregon School for the Blind and the Oregon School for the Deaf, Report Submitted to Oregon Department of Education, October 12, 2008 by Otak Architects, Inc. 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 See Exhibit G

17



RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Planning Process Implement “REVISITING THE CONTINUUM: SERVICES FOR STUDENTS WITH SENSORY DISABILITIES” see Task Force planning document on page 19.

B. Collaborative Learning Center Design OSD as a collaborative comprehensive learning center focused on the needs of students with sensory disabilities.

Research best practices (including other states’ models) Implement model programs for students K-12, transition age,

and early intervention based on best practice. Disseminate information on research and best practices. Professional development opportunities

C. Literacy Focus on improving student literacy. Communication is critical to literacy and literacy is key to educational success. Provide comprehensive access to communication options for students with sensory disabilities.

D. Technical Assistance Provide technical assistance to OSD Board of Directors to appropriately review policies and procedures of the OSD.

E. Funding/Sustainability Provide for financial sustainability for the state schools (OSB & OSD) by developing alternative funding sources, prioritizing services provided, and by aligning funding and programming with Regional Programs. Provide adequate and appropriate funding for the work of the OSD Board.

F. Relationships Strengthen relationship / partnerships with ODE, SACSE, OSD and local school districts (LEAs), Regional programs and other community partners. Design an ongoing communication mechanism for OSD stakeholders. G. Facilities: Reevaluate facilities’ needs based on recommended planning process

18



outcomes. Acquire estimated costs to build new redesigned facility.

Task Force Leads Representative from ODE, or engage a facilitator Purpose To advise the Oregon Department of Education on options for providing educational

services to students with sensory impairments in Oregon Assumptions Students and families of sensory impaired students would benefit from a better

articulated and coordinated set of services and placement options Student demographics have changed significantly and will continue to change

with implications for educational needs, services and materials IEP teams should have equitable access to a full continuum of services and

placement options from any region of the state Regional programs and the State Schools would benefit from better coordinated

services that compliment rather than compete Economic realities for both programs demand optimization of resources

Outcomes/Deliverables Develop one or more proposals to redesign service delivery systems for students with sensory impairments. Focus areas include alignment and prioritization of services between OSD/OSB and Regional Programs and addresses coordination of services, funding mechanisms, location and availability of services to students across the state

Members Members representing OSD & OSB Boards, staff; ODE specialists; Regional teachers and specialists, Regional Advisory Committee; parents; students/alumni; local education agencies (LEAs) and SACSE

Scope and Timeline 2 years: June 2008-June 2011 Completed report to Superintendent of Public Instruction by June 2011

Issues & Questions Inequity of service to Oregon’s students; (rural vs. urban) Facilities: How to assure safe, appropriately designed facilities for the 21st century

System coherency/alignment/fluidity between placement options

Cost/funding/sustainability

Teachers of DHH and BVI, Orientation and Mobility, and Educational

Interpreter shortages; especially in rural areas

Coordination of services

Identify other barriers and implementation issues

2009 – 2014

Planning for services to students with sensory disabilities:

Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Blind or Visually Impaired and Deaf-Blind Proposed

TASK FORCE

19



EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A - HB 2263, enacted by Oregon Legislature in July 2007, codified at ORS 346.010 et seq. http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=374

EXHIBIT B - Work Plan and Action Plan of the OSD Master Plan 2009-2014 http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=374

EXHIBIT C- Summary Report, Oregon Department of Education in Regard

to Oregon School for the Blind and Oregon School for the Deaf, October 1, 2008, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=2281

EXHIBIT D - Study of the Fiscal and Operational Efficiency of Oregon’s Regional and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs, Final Report, August 17, 2007.

EXHIBIT E State Schools Study Committee report, May 2006. (Report of

study group commissioned by Superintendent of Public Instruction to address 2005 Legislative Budget Note) http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=178

EXHIBIT F - State Schools Study Report, March 2007 (Oregon Department

of Education staff report on the State Schools Study Committee report of May 2006) http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1220

EXHIBIT G - Condition Assessment for the Oregon School for the Blind and

the Oregon School for the Deaf, Report Submitted to Oregon Department of Education, October 12, 2008, by Otak Architects, Inc. 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035

EXHIBIT H - Oregon School for the Deaf planning documents, including all

staff visioning, Site Council goals, survey questions etc.

EXHIBIT I - Proposed changes to parental notification document to include placement options

EXHIBIT J- Annual Report, 2007 -2008, Oregon School for the Deaf Board

of Directors, June 30, 2008, submitted to Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction. http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=374

20

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=374


http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=2281

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=178

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1220




ACRONYMS

AP

Action Plan

ASD

Autism spectrum disorder

BVI

Blind or Visually Impaired

DHH

Deaf or Hard of Hearing

DHHWG

Deaf or Hard of Hearing Working Group

D/B

Deaf-Blind

DOGAMI

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

ECSE

Early Childhood Special Education

EI

Early Intervention

ECC

Expanded Core Curriculum

FAPE

Free and Appropriate Public Education

IEP

Individual Education Plan

IDEA

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

LRE

Least Restrictive Environment

LEA

Local Education Agency

MP

Master Plan

OARS

Oregon Administrative Rules

ODE

Oregon Department of Education

ORS

Oregon Revised Statutes

OSB

Oregon School for the Blind

OSB Board

Oregon School for the Blind Board of Directors

OSD

Oregon School for the Deaf

OSD Board


21



O&M

Orientation and Mobility

OTAK

Otak Architects, Inc.

QPVI

Quality Programs for Visually Impaired

SACSE

State Advisory Council for Special Education

SIF

School Improvement Fund

SEA

State Education Agency

SSSC

State Schools Study Committee

SSSR

State Schools Study Report

TVI

Teacher of the Visually Impaired

TSPC

Teacher Standards Practices Commission

VWG

Vision Working Group

22



1/29/09

23

master plan 2009 – 2014 - ode.state.or.us · to serve as a statewide resource in the field of...

Documents